Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Appeal No. LHR‑525 of 1985/Pb. , decided on 18th December, 1985.
West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)‑‑
‑‑‑S.Os. 1(d) & 12(3)‑‑Badli worker‑‑Temporary worker‑‑Termination of service‑‑Bus conductor purportedly appointee as ‑Badli‑‑Appointment neither in leave vacancy nor on account of absence of any regular appointed‑‑Cannot be treated as Badli‑‑Probation period of 3 months not yet completed‑‑Could not be treated as permanent‑‑Termination of service of even a temporary worker requires explicit reasons to be mentioned in termination order‑‑"Service no longer required"‑‑No reason‑‑No case that post ceased to exist‑‑Termination order mentioning "no longer required", in circumstances, held, not legal and not sustainable.
Muhammad Iqbal Khokhar for Petitioner.
S.M. Kaleem, Representative for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 14th December, 1985.
The decision dated 18‑8‑1985 passed by Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No. 1, Lahore has been challenged by both the parties. Sarfrai (hereinafter to be called as the respondent) has in his appeal claimed back benefits, whereas the District Manager, Government Transport Service, Garden Town, Lahore (hereinafter to be described as the appellant) has challenged the direction of re‑instatement in service. Since both the appeals arise from the same decision, they are being disposed of together through this single judgment.
2. The respondent was appointed as Badli conductor vide order, copy of which is Exh. P.1, on 25‑10‑1983. On 11‑8‑1984 his services were terminated as no longer required vide order, copy of which is Exh. P. 7. The respondent deposed in his statement that he was not appointed in any leave vacancy or on account of the absence of any conductor. In Exh. P. 1 though it is said that the respondent was appointed as Balid conductor, but it is not said in whose leave vacancy he was taken as a Badli. Since the respondent himself says that he was not appointed against any leave vacancy, he is not a Badli conductor and since there is no evidence that he had completed the probationary period of three months, he has been wrongly directed by the learned lower Court that he be treated as a permanent workman. But even for the termination of the services of a temporary worker, reasons are to be given. In Exh. P. 7 no cogent and explicit ground is given. "No" longer required" is no reason. Question arises, why no longer required This is not the case of the appellant that the post against which the respondent was employed has ceased to Exist. So the order of termination is not legal and on this ground the respondent is entitled to be re‑instated in service.
3. The appeal of the respondent for back benefits has not been pressed.
4. As a result, the appeal of the respondent is dismissed and that of the appellant is partly accepted and modifying the impunged decision of the learned lower Court, it is held that the respondent is not a Badli conductor but a temporary employee and he be re‑instated in service as such without back benefits.
A.E.
Orders accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer